“I’ll take a permanent leave of absence, as a forum where Tobis gets off scot-free for his behaviour and I end up in moderation for calling him on it just doesn’t suit me.”

Now I’m not one to normally advocate censorship but when it’s suggested as a form of self help…

please, please oblige him Keith. Despite what he may think he has to offer, his signal/noise is just way to counterproductive to normal adult conversation. There are lots of other places on the web where he can indulge in his content-free trolling….

and Eli posted a follow-up which the Kloor monster threw (maybe unthrew now since it remains in moderation

What Marlowe said. MT is about the nicest person you could meet. His hallmark over the fifteen or so years that I have been aware of him is a seriousness and his willingness to listen, always, to consider another point of view (note, consider not adopt). As a result Michael can, and often is jerked around by the sophists, but no one is perfect. Tom Fuller and Co. have been conducting a jihad against Michael. Why, because MT exposes the Fuller and his friends emptiness. Recently, as Tobis has become more prominent, the drive bys have increased.

Mother Kloor did not improve

[Eli-You're the last person who should be lecturing Tom Fuller, given your history of thread-jacking insults and name-calling of the same order (do you have a "jihad" against RPJ?)--which is why you are on eternal moderation.//KK]

Ignoring the question of whether Ethon still flies or has retired to the old bird home (the answer to Keith's question, of course, is Willie Sutton, when Roger stops being petty, silly and self promoting, why then Eli will stop commenting on his pettiness, silliness and self promotion. Eli suspects he will be around for a long time, but that is another post) allow Eli to throw another issue upon the table.

Michael really is a nice person, who, if anything suffers from being too nice. As Eli wrote back to Keith

Hi Keith,Since we are communicating via moderation, moderation in all things including moderation being a virtue, Eli would ask Keith to consider why Michael has been the subject of vicious and sneaky attacks within the last year by Roger Pielke Jr., Richard Tol, Marc Morano, and yes, last but least, Tom Fuller. They, and apparently you, sense a threat to the narrative under construction.

Be that as it may, Eli was defending Michael, and explaining why Tom Fuller attacks him regularly. The Bunny understands that dyslexia can be a passing phase and asks you to go back and read his post on this

which was amended to

Be that as it may, Eli was defending Michael, and explaining why Tom Fuller attacks him regularly. The Bunny understands that dyslexia can be a passing phase and asks you to go back and read his post on this

Implying an equivalence between Gore, who is constantly treading a fine line between effective politics and truthful description of risks, and George Will, who is wrong from beginning to end in conception, detail and emphasis is unacceptable because it perpetuates this dangerous skew.

As for the scope of the ethical risk, let us consider the possibility that the behavior of the Times and the Post this year increases the chance of an extreme event with a premature mortality of a billion people by a mere part per million, a per cent of a per cent of a per cent. The expected mortality from this is a thousand people. Is that morally equivalent to actually killing a thousand people? It's not all that obvious to me that it isn't.

In practice one can and must excuse oneself behind all the myriad realistic uncertainties. We don't know, after all, which butterfly will cause the hurricane. Most likely if we do find our way to hell, we will have trodden on many good intentions along the way.

But the point is that we really are playing with fire here and we shouldn't be putting our own careers or our own self-worth (like a clever and easy column for the Times) ahead of the enormous scope of the problem, because mortalities on the order of a billion are by no means excluded.

which he passed on gleefully to Marc Morano, who sent it to Glenn Beck, etc. How about Richard Tol's laughable attempt to "eliteout" MT as an authoritarian, with an assist from Ethon's friend, and many other examples

So, as usual, with many detours, Bunny Labs comes to the question:

What is it about Michael Tobis that scares the denialist propaganda mills?

What is it about Michael Tobis that scares the denialist propaganda mills?

a) Through a multi-post series, mt accurately analyzes a certain book for the muddled, impractical mess it really is. b) mt repeatedly depicts the falsehoods of Fuller and allows him to leave a cowardly, expletive-laden comment as the exclamation point.c) mt authors a well-written blog that attracts more discerning readers than both RPJr's and Fuller's blogs combined, and thus successfully diverts attention from the usual contrarian tripe.d) all of the above.

I can imagine where people would disagree with me or dislike me. I cannot imagine how they would conclude that I am authoritarian in the way that Tol has.

The story is short and simple. Tol has advanced the idea that I support Maoist re-education camps. because I said something to the effect that the solution to climate change has to be partly about education (by which I meant an informed public). That is, according to Tol it is nothing short of totalitarian to use the word "education" in a context he disagrees with.

Ever since I used the word "education" in a conversation with him, Tol has treated me as an apologist for totalitarianism. At least insofar as I know, this is the only evidence he holds for my unreasonableness.

Being called "unreasonable" by someone like that is extremely irritating, and given Tol's high profile also rather frightening, but it's not exactly insulting in the usual sense, because there is not the slightest hint that the accusation makes an iota of sense.

I'll take the opportunity to ask Tol to re-examine the evidence he has about me, before I go so far as to return the favor of saying how I would characterize his behavior.

Thanks for this post, Eli. I found the information about RPJ's misrepresentation of Michael Tobis enlightening. One wonders what he would make of "Jim in the Jungle"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Williams#Critique_of_utilitarianism

The distressing thing is that clear thinking about any complex subject, such as climate change, or ethics, requires subtlety of thought. People who ride rough shod over the clear expression of such subtleties to whip up hatred (as Pielke apparently has) are beneath contempt. By doing so, they make genuine dialogue with them impossible. Unfortunately they also make it impossible for those they poison with their words.

And Michael, your words may have caused you distress, but I for one thought they elegantly expressed a genuine moral quandary. I like your answer to it as well.

1) I guess my call for "education" was aimed, if at anybody, at people who are basing their political beliefs on unsound substantive information. (I'm not sure I have strong political beliefs except that avoiding cooking the biosphere ought to be a primary goal. I'm pretty much a pragmatist.)

Empty statement. Any rational person believes that other rational persons would come around to their POV if only they were better informed. MT persists interacting with plainly irrational people. I think his behaviour is exemplary.

It's odd to be addressed on a first name basis by someone who thinks I advocate concentration camps for people who disagree with me. Dr. Tol, are you just playing games?

If you tarnish my reputation in this way in today's fraught political climate, it's not impossible that it will come back to do me considerable damage. Far from being insensitive to totalitarianism, I am a direct descendant of a man who died as a result of Nazi genocide, and both parents along with all their siblings who subsequently were refugees from communist Czechoslovakia. So it causes me a lot of discomfort to be associated with such things as well.

I try not to play this sympathy card as a habit. I know it can be more than a little tiresome for the descendants of refugees to be forever wheeling this out as a defense. But it's painful to me to be associated with totalitarianism. It's absolutely astonishing that you can push the conversation to this territory and still presume to be on a first name basis with me.

I acknowledge (as I did in our previous conversation) that not destroying the world is a constraint on my politics. I think a vast majority of people would agree, though many seem to find the prospect untroublingly distant. But even if you propose that a desire to destroy the world rather than preserve it is in the realm of politics, (a prospect you raised in our prior discussion) that is a sort of mathematical purism in a situation where a bit of engineering pragmatism is needed.

Anyway, I didn't exclude these fanatics from the prospect of education; maybe they want to know better HOW to destroy the world. Substantive education is not about whether to destroy the world, but about how the world is constructed and how it might be damaged.

I can't believe that you are dragging my name through the mud in the name of this ridiculous hair-splitting argument. If that's all you have, I strongly request you come out and say so.

Science is about making predictions. Politics is about judging whether the predicted future is desirable or not.

You have reviewed the evidence and reached the conclusion that climate change is undesirable. That's a perfectly respectable opinion, shared by a great many people, including me. But it is a political opinion.

I happen to think that maintaining scientific standards and the rules of democracy hold priority over reducing greenhouse gas emissions. My opinion is informed by academic research, but it is a political opinion nonetheless.

MT scares the contrarians and "skeptics", b/c he represents honesty and integrity. Not to mention how polite MT is and how he tends to stick to facts and science, rather than engaging in unsubstantiated, inflammatory and ambiguous commentary like Fuller and Tol and their cohorts do. This faux climate "debate" of theirs is just a hobby horse for them and a means to garner attention.

The contrarians need to get a life and to stop harassing and attacking good people, and get out of the way of progress.

Anyhow, me thinks the contrarians are envious of MT's virtues. Keep up the good work Michael, it is not going unnoticed. Don't be intimidated and bullied.

PS: I think that Curry is actually defaming and slandering herself through her own actions. So no need to blame others for her fall from grace (and science).

Dr. Tol has essentially nothing to back his accusations that I am unreasonable or authoritarian besides the facts that 1) I do not want to see the habitability and sustainability of the earth badly damaged and 2) I would like the public to better understand the objective evidence in regard to that prospect.

Am I to apologize for these things? It would seem a very modest and centrist position to me. But hey, I haven't studied the things Tol has studied. He finds those positions unreasonable and authoritarian. Who am I to argue? I'd really rather not. I stipulate the shocking, damning facts:

1) I do not want people to badly damage the world.2) I think it is less likely that they badly damage the world if they understand relevant science better.

Given my above confession, I trust that Tol will find other topics than my hideous malfeasance on these matters to discuss in future.

I second MapleLeaf's above comment. I'm amazed that you still remain courteous to Tol and Fuller despite their blatantly obvious attempts to rile you with jejune reasoning (Tol) and juvenile name-calling (Fuller). To quiet lurkers here, it appears that you've handily won the argument.

@tol:

You've been intellectually checkmated. How disappointing. tsk tsk.

@Tom (Fuller):

Screaming vulgar epithets while playing the hurt card is sooooooooooooo mature. Are you really this puerile in real life?

Michael Tobis is the guy who goes back to the cave and tells the people there that what they think is real are actually shadows on the cave wall. This drives the people nuts. They cannot rationalize their confirmation bias.

In other words: Michael Tobis gets blasted, not because he is smart, but because he's wise. Or at least, wise-r.

Sorry, mt, hope I didn't embarrass you! But I just can't resist the Rabett.

Without pouring it on too thick, MT deserves credit for being honest in the sense that he appears to be open to changing his ideas based on evidence and presents his beliefs in a clear LOGICAL fashion. Most appreciated from my POV is that he and admits error (however slight) when provided with convincing evidence but not otherwise. a shocking concept if ever there was one. It's the difference between having a conversation with a lawyer -- or someone promoting their latest book -- and a person that is genuinely interested in dialogue to enlighten and be enlightened.

Michael Tobis: "If you tarnish my reputation in this way in today's fraught political climate, it's not impossible that it will come back to do me considerable damage."

Michael Tobis: "We have reached a point where it is impossible to judge that Curry is in touch with the science that she is supposed to be a prominent participant in. So has she lost touch, or has she never had much scientific insight to begin with?"

Michael Tobis: "I mean, could this be the stuff of some subtle neurological decay, where a formerly competent scientist starts making no more sense than the peanut gallery?"

Michael Tobis: "Or alternatively, is the peer review system so shabby that a person of modest intellectual accomplishments, one who, despite years of connection to the scientific community, numerous publications and promotion to a position of responsibility, is capable of such vapid, illogical, pointlessly contentious writing."

Michael Tobis:"I can't believe that you are dragging my name through the mud in the name of this ridiculous hair-splitting argument. If that's all you have, I strongly request you come out and say so."

I don't deny I was harsh toward Judith Curry. These are the three middle slices of his sandwich. I provided some evidence to support these strong statements, about a persistent pattern of error if the sort one would one not expect from a scientist in Curry's claims.

Richard Tol's attack on me, the bread of Tom's sandwich, was not about substance, it was about character. He accuses me of totalitarian tendencies. To make matters worse he provides next to nothing in support.

The apparent hypocrisy on my part is therefore constructed, not real.

It is not fair to compare a baseless questioning of my character and intentions to an evidence-supported questioning of Curry's competence to represent science.

Fuller has constructed a piece of propaganda. It's a smarter attack than his usual, but it's also more malign than I expect from him. I think that before he got in with the wrong crowd on climate he might have been a nice fellow. It's a shame.

I see Michael as having a similar demeanor in his writing as Roger Pielke Jr while otherwise being completely (and thankfully) different. RP Jr's calmly stated stuff and nonsense does occasionally annoy me while Fuller is a barely noticeable buzzing sound. So I could see how MT could irritate the people who are trying to stop constructive action by climate hawks.

Richard Tol, the freedom to interpret and analyze data does not extend to incorrect analysis or willful duplicity. There are well established conventions for data analysis and interpretation. Stray outside of those and you ARE in need of education.

Richard Tol. Can you give me an example of some comment MT has made that suggests he does not accept peoples right to interpret the evidence differently? Education is about making sure people are aware of the evidence and have the analytic tools to know what to do with it; so a desire to see more/better education does not imply a lack of acceptance of other intepretations, provided those intepretations are logically sound.

Curry's Italian Flag argument is a good example of this; if Dr Curry were more familiar with the basics of probabilistic reasoning, she would know that her framework was fundamentally flawed. The reason her interpretation is not accepted is the method by which it was obtained, rather than the conclusion.

Martin Vermeer is close to the answer, but Eli thinks there is something deeper. In his own inverse way, RT shows that threat that MT poses is that he is not political, but moral.

RT and his friends go after people by claiming they are being political, but there are other bases for making choices: moral, religious, economic, personal, etc.

From the Rabett's observations Michael proceeds from the moral statement that each individual is responsible for the world and everything in it. This is incredibly threatening to those who only want to be for themselves, because it exposes their greed and self imposed isolation from their communities. It also knocks modern economics into a cocked hat.

"From the Rabett's observations Michael proceeds from the moral statement that each individual is responsible for the world and everything in it."

Thanks, Eli.

I think that's fair. I remember coming to that explicit conclusion long ago. Maybe I said so a couple of times back in the usenet days, but I've internalized it and haven't explicitly thought about it much lately. I sometimes forget that some people don't accept it either explicitly or implicitly.

I have trouble making sense of how any alternative might work.

Everyone on a ship at sea is equally responsible for the safety of the ship at sea. Taking responsibility for your own cabin makes sense when things are running well. When they are not, everybody needs to look to where they can best fill in the missing responsibilities. Because if some crucial job doesn't get done, the ship sinks, and the ones with impeccable cabins are as drowned as everyone else.

Buckminster Fuller (the other Fuller) pointed out that the earth is literally and exactly a spaceship, no more and no less. Now that technological civilization has overridden the autopilot, the future of the whole thing is in our hands. The ethical responsibility to the integrity of the whole ship vastly outweighs any smaller rights and duties until we can get the ship back on an even keel.

Maybe we are wasting our time arguing matters of science and probability, because we don't share this pragmatic ethic. I admit that I have trouble seeing it any other way.

Economists chattering about discount rates seem to think their precious theories are more important than the world. There is no discount rate. Destroying the world in 1000 years or 10,000 is more disastrous than starting a nuclear war tomorrow.

Conventional economics fails without a discount rate, but discounting itself violates the sustainability principle. There are two options: 1) apply conventional economic theory to problems other than those for which it is useful or 2) preserve the living world. Remarkably, this choice is controversial.

Of course! Now I get it. All of us who disagree with your twisted view of the science and your preferred policy options hate... the... planet...! I didn't know that about myself.

Silly me. I thought I gave up owning a car 20 yeas ago because... I... loved... the planet. I thought I recycled everything except my fingernails for the same reason.

I thought that I campaigned for Barack Obama and his energy plan because I loved the planet! I thought I advocated a price on carbon because I loved the planet.

And I thought I advocated sound science instead of hysteria for the same reason. Rabett, I guess you're not the silly one. All this time it's been me! Wait--do I see Damascus there ahead of me?

No. It's a Potemkin construct, based on over facile interpretations of new data streams from new technologies that don't splice well on the longer and more uncertain data streams they were invented to replace.

But the burning need of fools like you to create a phoney End of the World to panic the public into adopting your agenda makes possible a situation where Michael Tobis, who has never published anything other than his hysteri-blog, thinks he is justified in treating Judith Curry worse than Marc Morano treats Michael Mann, and with far less justification. Then he gets all shirty when Richard Tol calls him on it.

“You piss me off because you're a gutless wonder nibbling around the edges of plants and mumbling invective behind your weathered whiskers and disappearing down holes.”

Is it Thomas Fuller writing that stuff? Why do the deniers get angry so often? My sociological background tells me that those who get angry often/easily, are people that were exposed to violence as children, commonly by their own parents.And it is the same type of people that you attract if you want them to fight your own wars. Thomas, are you a foot soldier?

Wow, Fuller is going down in flames. He should read the latest essay at RC....:) But I'm sure the message will be completely lost on him.

Fuller-- "thinks he is justified in treating Judith Curry worse than Marc Morano treats Michael Mann, and with far less justification"

What a load of bloody nonsense. Fuller drawing parallels between Morano and Tobis is ludicrous in the extreme, especially when Morano has suggested pubic floggings of climate scientists,

"I seriously believe we should kick them while they’re down,” he said. “They deserve to be publicly flogged.” Marc Morano

And just because Fuller claims to not own a car and to love the planet, that does most certainly not by default make him an angel and permit him to bullshit, lie, slander others and treat people badly.

Oh, and nowhere in the IPCC does it "create a phoney End of the World "-- Thomas deceives/lies again.

The only alarmism and hysteria I am seeing is embedded in Fuller's posts here. With that all said, his attempt to get the WUWT crowd on board to accept a 2.5 C climate sensitivity was admirable. The ambiguity continues....

Well, let Eli put in a good word to Tom, who is missing the point. If you want to argue with someone who is basing what he says on a moral premise, you have to confront the premise first. So if you think Michael is wrong, you have to either

a) convince him that we are not individually responsible for protecting and improving the world and the people in it

or

b) show him how what he concludes from his premise will not support protecting and improving the world and the people in it

or

c) show him a better way of meeting his goal

If you look at what he has written to you, you will see that he has concluded that your recommendations meet condition b), e.g. they will lead to worse outcomes and c) he has provided some better ways of meeting the challenge. Oh yeah, you ain't Ghandi.

Tobis, I've been on a ship. I spent four years in the Navy. Cabins? You're dreaming.

Two relevant anecdotes to just remind you there is a real world out there.

#1. As the electronics specialist normally concerned with radar, communications and crypto, it fell to me to take on the unwanted responsibility of the sonar capabilities, and in particular to participate in a charting exercise of depth and ocean temperatures. I supervised the work of boatswain's mates and boiler techs taking temperature readings with thermometers in buckets. And I will tell you now that if you want to make policy decisions based on such measurements you would be better served by flipping a coin.

#2. In terms of your responsiblity to the well-being of the ship, you need to remember that your ship has a mission. While conducting Operation Rolling Thunder in the East China Sea (and inventing countless fart jokes related to its name) the Watergate crisis was coming to a crescendo back in the U.S. As crypto tech I also had the privilege of seeing communications before the radiomen took them up to the OOD. So I got to read a message to all captains in the fleet specifically reminding them that their loyalty was to the U.S. constitution, and not to any individual holding high office. It was the only time in four years I felt proud to be in uniform.

The responsibility of science and scientists is not buttressing the house of cards you and the IPCC have so carefully constructed. You purblind fools are in trouble for a reason--because you can't stop pretending you have solid information that points unerringly in one direction. And anyone who sticks up their hand and says you are underplaying uncertainty in the data and over-reaching in your analysis inspires spittle-flecked rage and mouth foaming not seen since Salem.

I was really angry with you when you spent five or six blog posts insisting I don't understand science, without ever giving a single example, despite my repeated requests. I must say, now that you've made essentially the same accusation of Judith Curry, I feel much better about it.

Anonymous, Stephen Schneider didn't feel that way. He complimented me on the interview I conducted with him, saying that despite my disagreement with him on many issues that I had been very fair and open, and he thanked me for being so.

As far as making sense, caveat lector. But you at least know who I am--and I presume, where I live.

"And anyone who sticks up their hand and says you are underplaying uncertainty in the data and over-reaching in your analysis inspires spittle-flecked rage and mouth foaming not seen since Salem."

He should read this insightful and intelligent article by Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/40652.html

"The IPCC’s conservatism is not confined to people’s perceptions but extends to the physical climate as well. The planet’s climate is changing more rapidly than anticipated by the IPCC: According to a recent peer-reviewed analysis by Professors Freudenburgs and Muselli of the University of California, nearly 90 per cent of all reports about new scientific findings since the IPCC’s 2007 assessment reveal global climate disruption to be worse, and progressing more rapidly, than expected."

And

"Thus, far from being alarmist, the carefully chosen phraseology of the IPCC fails to communicate the urgency of the situation."

For example, they have been too conservative/optimistic about sea-level rise and Arctic sea ice loss. In AR4 they did not take into account the contribution to SL rise from ice lost from ice sheets such as the GIS and the WAIS. Uncertainty cuts both ways, yet Fuller et al are yelping about Italian flags.

Tom Fuller, do you have any idea how utterly incompatible your recent 2.5 C-blah blah is with for instance that Climategate book with the corny title you wrote? The only way I can combine these two things is by concluding that we are dealing with someone who a) will do anything to attract attention and transfer that attention into dollars, and b) act as if he really is concerned about AGW and wants to talk, talk, talk and talk some more, but not do anything.

It's like saying you're concerned about the image of the sport of golf and then eagerly publish a badly written book full of assumptions and allegations within weeks of TigerGate hitting the fan.

It's hypocrite, highly irresponsible and exactly what Steven Mosher advises his fellow denialists to follow as a strategy. Just to delay and win the game.

It's hypocrite, highly irresponsible and exactly what Steven Mosher advises his fellow denialists to follow as a strategy. Just to delay and win the game.

Who else has been trying the delay tactic? The tobacco industry. They did the exact disinformation campaign that we see nowdays, and they managed to delay smoking regulation for fifty years. The tobacco industry managed to pull tricks to create doubt on the science.

They managed to get several thousand unsuspecting prograds to sign a document which vaguely said smoking is fine.

They asked for more time just to get more research on the exact process that carcinogenic chemicals cause cancer (it's so complex to get a complete answer, it's like asking to figure out first how stem cells create the lungs before taking action!

The deniers are being played by the oil/coal industry. They are expendable, just to do what they can to delay. But this is not a game.

I am a little confused. Just what Operation Rolling Thunder could Tom Fuller be referring to? The only one I am aware of involved President Johnson’s bombing of North Vietnam. This ended in 1968. Maybe because the name had such scatological resonance we had more than one. Nixon resigned August 8, 1974.

I had just departed on my first patrol as Executive Officer of the USS George Washington Carver, a strategic missile submarine operating out of Rota Spain. I spent some fretful days living in the Radio Room reading everything coming in off the fleet broadcast. It was not a good feeling to depart on patrol at the very pointy end of the nuclear spear knowing that the commander in chief would not last out the patrol and having no idea what he might pull to avoid the inevitable.

I remember no CO EYES ONLY message such as Fuller describes. (XO’s see those too) There was just the announcement of the resignation and the peaceful transition to President Gerald Ford followed by a giant sigh of relief throughout the ship.

No one can better identify with Tobis’ analogy of shared responsibility for the safety of the ship than a submariner.

I also have some issues with Fuller’s characterization of Navy efforts in gathering oceanographic data. Those issues pale in comparison with how I feel about his statement that he was proud to wear the uniform on only one day of his enlistment.

Now please explain the contradiction between the 2.5 C-thingy and your Crutape Letters (cringe)-thingy. Someone who genuinely feels that AGW is real and that a doubling of CO2 leads to a 2.5 C temperature rise (which is huge, absolutely huge) does not go and write books about some scandal that doesn't change the science, but could be used to debilitate it nonetheless through PR.

If you truly believe AGW is real and could lead to a 2.5 C temperature rise then you ought to be ashamed for your role in the ClimateGate hyperbole. But really ashamed, you know.

If you're not ashamed, you apparently do not believe AGW is real or a problem. But you say you do, which means you're a liar and a hypocrite. Maybe you can rationalize that by believing that the end (kill any action to mitigate AGW consequences) justifies the means (lying, distorting and delaying). That would be sick, but what can you do.

BTW, if I may ask, how much did you and Mosher make so far with the book?

It's incredibly bankrupt to say we should not report the facts of unethical behaviour because the cause is just.

You did not report, you blew the whole thing out of all proportion. That's fine, everyone has to make a buck, as do paparazzi. But doing this and saying you think AGW is a potential threat and that global temperature will rise by 2.5 C when CO2 doubles, are two things that do not go together.

Tom Fuller, I think there is a very high probability that you are acting in an unethical manner and I would be amazed if you are not conscious of the fact.

Hey! I just found my old yearbook for the USS Barbour County LST 1195 and you're right--it wasn't Rolling Thunder, it was Operation Frequent Wind (hence even more fart jokes). Funny what 36 years will do to your memory...

IIRC, that message came from ComNavSurfPac, which may be one reason why subs didn't get it...

Tom Fuller, I think there is a very high probability that you are acting in an unethical manner and I would be amazed if you are not conscious of the fact.

I would be amazed if he were conscious of it. As MT said Tom Fuller is a good writer, and is, I think, sincere and well-intentioned

Mr. Fuller appears to miss some of the basic science--not surprising since he is a journalist--and does not know enough to see that Judith Curry has made some a number of very elementary mistakes. For some reason he is trusting the judgments of people who are quite wrong.

Tom, as someone who cringed over some of what MT wrote about JC (I really thought "you should not have said that"), and as someone who was predisposed to think highly of her (she stroked my ego a fair amount years ago when responding to one of my first posts many years ago), I hope you will actually think about this:1) Repeatedly calling MT a "scumbag" makes you look very immature. It does you and your arguments no good. 2) It appears like you are taking MT's criticisms of her personally, or have something personal against MT. Perhaps you should examine your desire to defend JC.3) As I said above, I was predisposed to like JC. I actually believe she has done good work and will continue to do good science. However, she has also said some very silly things, and is continuing to pontificate beyond her expertise. She has refused to admit her errors or back down, even when her mistakes were pointed out by people who were experts in what she was talking about. I understand you don't see it that way, but if you entertain the possibility that others do (MT, JA, WC, AS, etc), what they say about JC will seem logical and not extreme at all. 4)I know you wont believe this but most of the serious criticisms of JC are not personal, we really are having a hard time understanding why she is making so many ridiculous statements.

Nosmo, thank you for your comment. I will try and not call Michael Tobis a scumbag in the future. However, that is how I think of him following his post, so I make no promises.

Fine, but he is not, and he clearly doesn't think of you that way. And I do hope you think about my other points.

Oh, and you really should explain/correct "Operation Rolling Thunder". It doesn't make sense that the military would reuse the name of arguably the most famous operation of the Vietnam War. My guess is you are just confusing names of operations that happened 40 years ago. Perfectly understandable, but even if you are correct, leaving it like you did, does not look good.

Unless there was another one "Rolling Thunder" is a POW/MIA commemoration that occurs every Memorial Day in DC. Many of those participating ride LARGE Harleys, and they have a fairly impressive and loud parade.

Tom explained his mistaken memory around "Rolling Thunder," and I withdraw my snark: I was eight years old when he was on that mission, but even I have trouble remembering what I had for breakfast most days.

Seriously: I'll call a man a chump when I think he's acting a chump, but I don't mean to disrespect his service.

Republicans are at their worst after victory. Democrats are at their best after defeat. I interviewed Morano--had to get one skeptic. He didn't seem that bad, just a flack doing a job he clearly enjoyed.

I feel kind of sorry for him--his 15 minutes of fame will be having beaten Joe Romm in a debate that everyone has already forgotten.

You have reviewed the evidence and reached the conclusion that climate change is undesirable. That's a perfectly respectable opinion, shared by a great many people, including me. But it is a political opinion.

OK I'll buy that, although as far as political opinions go, believing that the kind of severe, in some cases devastating, effects on the lives of many millions of people which are predicted if we continue on our current trajectory are undesirable doesn't strike me as being particularly controversional. I'm more confused by your following statement though.

I happen to think that maintaining scientific standards and the rules of democracy hold priority over reducing greenhouse gas emissions. My opinion is informed by academic research, but it is a political opinion nonetheless.

I mean surely maintaining scientific standards and the rules of democracy is something that we would all agree is right and proper? OK, it might be a "political" view, but again an entirely uncontroversial one. But why does that notion, as you seem to imply, conflict with reducing greenhouse gasses? Why can't we do both?

Tom and Richard, Let's take a step back. Would you at least agree that climate change constitutes a potential threat--that is that its realization would have some negative consequences?

If so, would you agree that the proper treatment of that threat would be probabilistic risk assessment? After all, this is a standard method in most risk analyses. If not, why not?

If so, then the first step is to bound risk. Here's where we encounter our first problem. The favored value for climate sensitivity is 3 degrees per doubling, and even 4.5 degrees per doubling cannot be ruled out with high confidence. It is likely that we will have seen two doublings of CO2 by the end of this century, for a temperature rise of between 6 and 9 degrees C--perhaps up to 10 taking into account feedbaks not considered in the Charney analysis. This is well into the dangerous region, and in conjunction with the global population cresting aroung 10 billion by mid century, could lead to severe consequences. In fact, we really cannot bound these consequences effectively.

Now PRA says that under such circumstances, the only effective mitigation strategy is risk avoidance, while at the same time working to more effectively bound the risk assessment. I'm afraid this supports MT's position a lot more than it supports yours--and it is an objective analysis, not political. I think that is where your analysis fails. You go directly from science to politics without considering the interim step of engineering.

Hi Eli, Talk about a bunch of drunks, throwing their shit at the wall, in the lounge of the Tit-an-Ink... You all, coulda wiped our butt with a few 'Grover's. Now; we are on the QEII. When your analysis fails, you go directly from science to politics without considering the interim step of engineering. Any of you brite folks smelling smoke yet? Your house in on fire. Call the FED.

But if the "alarming" projections are even half true (bearing in mind that the IPCC are a conservative bunch), what makes you think the next generations will give a monkey's about democractic rights and scientific standards? Something you may experience, although at our ages we'll be way down on any potential triage priorities, especially if we turn out to be viewed as the "arsehole generation" that made it all happen.

You assume that "alarmists" (or "carrion" as TF so elegantly put it) wish to erode these democratic rights, instead of considering that we actually wish to maintain them.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." These words belong to every citizen of the United States. They will cost me what I am able & willing to pay. Not a penny more.

Atom, I'd consider what a simple loaf of bread may cost in 30 years under worst case scenarios, and balance that with what you'd be willing to pay now with what you would probably be willing to do then. Probably the last thing on most minds will be what enlightened men in the 18th Century laid down as a healthy blueprint for nation building should China, who takes a very long view of a very long game, manage to weather the worst of what may well already been seen to have started and write the price tags.

Wow! Jay, Now you are talkin! A world-wide-fire-sale... Do you have dual citizenship? Ski, cheep in Bosnia, buy your tickets now. Vail, next season?... You folks are sure clear in your poly-tickin'. Is there a doctor in the house?:o)

Another thing about Fuller's fiction about his time in the Navy. He says:

"I supervised the work of boatswain's mates and boiler techs taking temperature readings with thermometers in buckets." This is a pile of fictitious BS.

Fuller, before I explain why this is BS to everyone reading this would you like to reassess your "remembrance" of this and perhaps make it into an honest statement rather than the fiction you are so fond of (remember you have already struck out twice on your statements about your Naval career).

I will give you time to right your "write" on this and if you don't I will show why it is utter nonsense.

Our entire socio economic system is so utterly dependant upon endless growth. Yet it is contraction upon contraction that faces us.

We are so wasteful now; but we will learn that no food is too rotten for something to eat it. Where we now throw out major appliances rather than fix them, soon we we will be saving our urine to replace unobtainable fertiliser. Night soil will be too valuable to flush away.

Tom, do you still think the Titanic is unsinkable? Can we vote it back to the surface?

Michael Tobis, the subject of this thread, seems to want to take away the democratic rights of people who do not share his opinion on the urgency of greenhouse gas emission reduction. He did not actually say so, but he uses language that can easily be interpreted that way, and he has not said the opposite. People like Jim Hansen and John Schellnhuber are less ambivalent: they'd like a eco-dictatorship.

I disagree with that because authoritarianism is a sure way to misery, while for climate change the jury is still out. Franny Armstrong has called for amputations of deniers' limbs.

I think that one can make a scientifically valid and transparent argument for emission reduction. There is no need to hide the decline or adopt a dubious position on discount rates. I also think that democracies are capable of reducing emissions, although the empirical evidence suggests that it is rather messy.

Does every person on earth* get an equal vote? (including all the young children in the third world who may be affected?)

Logically, the "equal vote" would apply to deciding how to "divy up" the available energy sources.

Or is the vote of those in the first world to be more equal than that of those in the third world (following the usual "democratic" standard), perhaps with the latter being treated as "non-persons" as the US Constitution treated slaves**?

*to say nothing of unborn generations who will undoubtedly bear most of the cost of climate change.

**or was it "3/5th's-persons"? No matter. Either way, they got no vote...

J Bowers, I hope you understand, that it is not the volume of what you have read that is important. Rather, it is what you take away in comprehension and the insights gleaned, that help to give you, your understanding. Keep at it. You seem to have time. All the best.

And here I always thought the "when did you stop beating your wife" gambit was apocryphal. Twenty years on the intertubes, and I don't think I've ever seen a purer example of the trope than "He did not actually say so, but he uses language that can easily be interpreted that way, and he has not said the opposite."

Given that we are talking about ships-- earth is in fact a "space ship" according to Robert Thirsk (an astronaut who spent 187 days on board the ISS). Perhaps we should seriously consider his wise words:

I transcribed this form an essay he published in Canadian Geographic in October 2010:

""Spaceship Earth" flies in its own orbital trajectory around the sun with its own mission objectives. An alarmingly thin veil of atmosphere around Earth is all that shields this enormous spacecraft from outer space's hard vacuum, solar radiation and extremes of temperature.

Earth's life-support system is much more sophisticated than that of the space station, and relies upon finely tuned interactions among land, oceans, atmosphere, the freshwater cycle, flora and fauna. Its resources are limited. No cargo ships will visit Earth to replenish its atmosphere, water and topsoil or to remove its trash.

Living in space is precarious, whether we fly as six astronauts aboard the International Space Station or as seven billion astronauts aboard Spaceship Earth. In both cases, our ultimate goal is to develop an advanced life-support system that is reliable, repairable and 100 percent renewable. For us to succeed on Spaceship Earth, each one of us will have to think – and act- like an astronaut."

Now are we going to continue to argue hypotheticals, philosophize, argue semantics and nit pick or are we all actually going finally to get our effing act together and actually do something Richard Tol? Please, do get out of the way and stop trying to muddy the waters.

"Michael Tobis, the subject of this thread, seems to want to take away the democratic rights of people who do not share his opinion on the urgency of greenhouse gas emission reduction. He did not actually say so, but he uses language that can easily be interpreted that way, and he has not said the opposite."

WTF?! Good God but you are now really scraping the rust from the bottom of the barrel. And you, Richard, have never explicitly said that you do not beat your wife/partner or that you are not an idiot or do not cheat on your taxes, so one can only conclude....

But look at what Morano, Inhofe, Beck, Limbaugh, Cuccinelli, McIntyre, and Monckton and other ideologues actually have said, and which is not open to misinterpretation, but rather very explicit and which has been echoed widely.

In the meantime, we continue to emit GHGs at an accelerated rate, CO2 continues to rise, the earth continues to experience an increasing net positive energy imbalance, and here you are bickering, talking hypotheticals and muddying the waters to delay action. I know that might suite you just fine, but is does not serve future generations and the planet which supports us well now does it?

Richard Tol wrote - "He did not actually say so, but he uses language that can easily be interpreted that way, and he has not said the opposite."

Sorry that is one of the funniest things I have read in a while! Why should MT be required to explicitly refute each and every rhetorical misrepresentation that can be thrown at him? It is your responsibility to make sure your accusations are well founded. If someone is sufficiently ill-disposed the can easily find wildly uncharitable interpretations to the mildest of statements. If you think this comment paints you in a good light, I would venture to suggest that you have lost perspective somewhat. All you are doing is making MT look reasonable and yourself unreasonable.

J Bowers, To be clear, the word in my copy of The Declaration of Independence, is: unalienable.

"Unalienable rights are natural rights that can not be taken away from you. Such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as stated in The Declaration of Independence of the United States. Rights that are given to you by your Creator. They are considered natural rights and not legal rights.

I see Dr. Tol is not giving up, despite the fact that not only that I myself do not believe myself authoritarian in the least, but also that I can in fact claim that, at least in comparison to most people likely to encounter this conversation, I am actually a victim of authoritarianism.

I will admit that the topic upsets me emotionally. One shouldn't post while emotional. So I'm at something of a disadvantage.

This is not because there is any meaningful truth to the accusation. Quite the opposite; it's because I take the preservation of freedom and dignity and human rights so seriously that it really takes the wind out of my sails to be accused otherwise.

As Eli frequently points out, if climate science is even roughly correct we are in big trouble, and the longer we delay in addressing the big trouble, the greater the threats to personal freedom.

Meanwhile, I do not know what it is I am supposed to deny. One aspect of freedom is the right to be confronted by one's accuser, I had thought. Another is the right to be presumed innocent.

Failing anything clear I will deny as broadly as I accused: any interpretation of anything I have said as in opposition to "democratic rights" as Tol puts it is wrong, baseless and at best unkind. Indeed I suspect such an accusation concretely and specifically infringes on my own rights.

I hope that qualifies as "saying the opposite".

Tol is not exactly welcome to be more specific, but if he wishes to pursue this more seriously he should do so, so that I can defend against his claims. Otherwise, as I would greatly prefer, he should have the common decency to stop accusing me of advocating the exact opposite of what I believe.

It seems possible that in Tol's world this is a modest academic discussion over nuances of language and fine distinctions. If that is correct I wish he would find somebody else to pick nits with. Or if he wants to engage with me, he could find some other point of discussion rather than where I fit in his taxonomy.

In my world, as it stands this is practically an assault, and it's not appreciated. In short, I do not want to talk about this and Tol is forcing me to. This is hardly respectful of my rights. So if Tol is so concerned about rights perhaps he can demonstrate it by respecting mine and dropping the matter.

"I will admit that the topic upsets me emotionally. One shouldn't post while emotional. So I'm at something of a disadvantage."

Tol thinks that he has detected a perceived "weakness" there on your part, and he is now trying to exploit it and manipulate the situation. Don't let him-- especially after you volunteered your history and volunteered how (very understandably) painful those accusations of "authoritarianism" are. He is probably trying to get something juicy to quote mine or use against you.

This is really just a game for Tol, an opportunity to try and score intellectual points, and for Fuller it is just a game to get attention to try and make some money.

Richard and Tom, you appear to be reluctant to engage on the question of the validity of MT's concern over the effects of climate change. I've noted that since it is not possible to bound risk, that risk avoidance is, per PRA, the only valid approach. This would seem to support MT's position more than your own.

Moreover, your accusations of authoritarianism seem to rest on the flimsiest of interpretations. He's an authoritarian because he hasn't denied it? Really! Is he an extraterrestrial via the same logic?

George Lakoff has discussed the different meaning of "Freedom" to those of various political persuasions. To some on the right define freedom as freedom to make money. It is equivalent to unfettered capitalism. By that defination many of us are "anti-freedom", or at some aspects of it.

"Buckminster Fuller (the other Fuller) pointed out that the earth is literally and exactly a spaceship, no more and no less. Now that technological civilization has overridden the autopilot, the future of the whole thing is in our hands. "

Very well said. Unfortunately for us, there is a fight going on in the control room, because the people who have been shovelling too much coal into the boilers don't want to stop.

I think that many deniers try to argue the science, but what they are really afraid of is that admitting AGW is a serious problem means we will have to make political changes.

They seem to have realised that leaving everything to an unfettered freemarket (if such a thing really existed) is not the best way to deal with the problem. They fear, with reason, that government regulation will need to be increased. The more paranoid among them think this will lead to one world government and the antichrist or whatever, but even the halfway sensible ones just hate the idea of government intervention and socialism, etc.

So perhaps Richard Tol thinks anyone who wants to put a carbon tax on fossil fuels is an authoritatian?

Fuller got hit target wrong, too - that wasn't Dhogaza, that was me. And FWIW, I don't care if the *dates* were wrong, only that two things you said happened at the same time didn't. You chose to tell some old war story (I have no idea why), and the information you chose to put in doesn't stack up, even when you "correct" it. So what is it? Merely corroborative detail intended to give artistic verissimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative? I don't think it's lying, but perhaps Harry Frankfurt's "greater enemy"...?

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of accuracy in Tom's story at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.

I liked mt's link to Elmer, but really, I'm, reminded more of Sam - bunnies might like the video here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3274382137005127076#

Good point. Unalienable meaning rights that cannot be transferred, and inalienable meaning rights that cannot be transferred without consent. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are rights that can't be transferred, so I'll go with your unalienable. I stand corrected, barring a scan of the original document saying otherwise.

But they're both still constructs and abstract. In order to enjoy the right to life, liberty and happiness we need to first eat.

"Rather, it is what you take away in comprehension and the insights gleaned, that help to give you, your understanding."

Without knowing anything about me, there, I must say, you're just being a condescending knobhead.

In case anyone is wondering where exactly Fuller was when Nixon resigned it turns out that the USS Barbour County (assuming Fuller was actually on board, which is very much an assumption I'm not too inclined to make because of the various fictional accounts Fuller has made concerning his naval exploits) was off the coast of California doing various training exercises. So the Captain didn't need Fuller to tell him about Nixon's resignation, he probably heard about it in a San Diego bar.

J Bowers, With what authority are you now able to declare the word or words for that matter, as abstract? The word unalienable, is not abstract to me & I believe, to many others as well. As to your other observation, you are correct.

More successful societies use facts as one of the inputs for their decisions. They also use moralities and have mechanisms like democracy.

Less successful societies use delusions as inputs for their decisions.

If for example everyone believed that breastfeeding kills babies, and they democratically elected it to be punishable by death, it would be a bad thing for society.

Even if everybody had really really really good intentions, there would be no corruption and there would be great democracy, it's really hard to get sensible policy out if the *facts* going into the decisionmaking process are wrong.

This is what Tobis is advocating: That delusions should not be the basis of decisions. Education (which itself is based on research of evidence) helps those get the *facts* right. Then they can use morals and whatever.

If your facts are wrong, your actions may cause the opposite of your intentions.

Cymraeg llygoden, As you are able to point out to us all; we are living in a period of time, when many people have been lied to about their abilities, as well as who we are as a nation. The young are turned into flat surfaces, through 12 years of quasi-education. Words are given a political meaning. No one reads and studies for themselves, it seems. So many don't know where to go to get the root, of tough questions. It shows us all in this country, that the depreciation of our currency has also been transferred into our education system. Buy & Large, we are unable to extract the value of what we have paid, from what we have been taught by others. Once again it comes down to the individual. How hard do you; want it... now get up off your dead ass and do it; for yourself. Others have done the heavy lifting for us. We just need to apply the elbow grease ourselves. If a man were to put seven years of diligent work, spent on understanding the Bible. Say, until you get a good dog-eared look to both the Bible and a Strong's concordance(though today I much prefer the Blue Letter Bible, using Strong's, on line). You will be amazed at the power of the written, word. The word doctors of the 20th & 21st, centuries, have all but killed their charge. As a rabbit you should know, the importance of a good root.

@FlaviusThat's not the point. There is a lot of well-informed, highly-intelligent people there is a lot of variation about the appropriate course of action for climate policy -- not as much variation as in the total electorate, but a wide variation nonetheless.

The variation of opinion can only be reduced by excluding people from the debate.

@RT: "The variation of opinion can only be reduced by excluding people from the debate."

A quite revealing remark, at least to me. A group of scientists may have quite a variation of opinion (say on the mass of the Higgs), but once the experiment is done, this variation is reduced dramatically, without excluding anyone. Facts ought to change opinions. The RT working assumption appears to be that no one changes opinion and the truth is found in a democratic way.

"curryja | November 6, 2010 at 1:13 pm | ReplyOk, so something that Pat Michaels said is alleged to be incorrect. Rebut it (and this one has been rebutted thoroughly). Do not use this as an excuse to fight a holy war against Michaels, or worse yet, all skeptics."

"I am slimed in ridiculous ways on other blogs (Michael Tobis is busily doubling his blog hits by doing this)."

Thoughts?

She's getting a kick out of her own blog hits. Ill-doers, ill-deemers.

This is what Tobis is advocating: That delusions should not be the basis of decisions.

Very well-put. I think Richard Tol believes that people should have the freedom to believe in delusions. The only problem is that if they get a say in what decisions should be taken the freedom of others will suffer greatly. A bit of a paradox really. My big problem with the current delusion wrt AGW is that it is in large part fed by propaganda, ten times worse than the polar bear-propaganda.

Why do I say this? I saw (Astro) Turf Wars yesterday. That scared the living daylights out of me. Richard Tol, you should watch that and see how the delusional are trying really hard to unwittingly serve their masters. If well-informed, highly-intelligent people were the only players, you would sound very reasonable and rational. But they are most definitely not the only players. Do not underestimate the power of the delusional.

That's not the point. There is a lot of well-informed, highly-intelligent people there is a lot of variation about the appropriate course of action for climate policy -- not as much variation as in the total electorate, but a wide variation nonetheless.

The variation of opinion can only be reduced by excluding people from the debate.

Quote end.

You have it completely backwards. If 50% of people have very delusional ideas about climate*, it really makes no sense to vote on the course of action.

This is why the scientists are frustrated and want to educate people on what the evidence really strongly suggests.

Only after that point comes the decision about what to do. Reality first, then politics.

*you could insert public beliefs about vaccination or HIV in certain locations as well, anything where delusions are large enough to affect policy a lot...

Or to put it in other words: with a large amount of people, we're not really at a point yet where discussing what to do about something makes sense - they're still in denial about the whole existence of it.

That's also why Roger Pielke Jr is not taken seriously by many - since he somehow acts as if policy could exist totally separately from science (and thus reality).

I understand that two people who both recognize the facts can disagree about what to do about them. But we're not nearly at that point yet.

Somebody mentioned how it's like discussing what clothes to pack for vacation when the people have vastly different ideas about the destination. You can't really make the decision if you don't even know where you are going.

Discussing global warming policy with Heartland guys would be just like that.

"BARBOUR COUNTY began 1974 with a visit to Hong Kong, departing Subic Bay on 2 January and arriving at her destination on the 4th. On the 9th, she headed back to Subic Bay where she spent the period 11 to 20 January. The ship put to sea again on the 20th for an emergency contingency operation in the Gulf of Siam, Operation "Eagle Pull," during which she stood by off the Cambodian coast ready to evacuate Americans and other foreigners from the capital, Phnom Penh, in the event of a communist takeover. When the danger passed (at least for the moment) in mid-February, the ship steamed back to Subic Bay, arriving there on the 15th. A week later, she embarked on the voyage back to the United States. BARBOUR COUNTY entered her new home port, San Diego, on 14 March.

Following a month of relative inactivity pierside in San Diego, the ship recommenced local operations off the California coast on 16 April. Those assignments involved a variety of training missions but usually focused on some aspect of amphibious warfare from normal troop landings to clandestine insertions. Such duty occupied her time through the summer months and into September."

Richard Tol, Again, you are ignoring the fact that decisions need to be based on an accurate perception of reality. We can be as democratic as we want. Nature won't care, but will respond according to fixed laws--laws we know and which we must consider in developing effective policies.

If you really care about democracy, it would seem to me that you would be arguing for effective action before the crisis becomes acute and demagogues can really exploit public fear to promote their agendas.

RE: flavius collium: "I'm saying that if people are delusional, democracy doesn't work."

Democracy often doesn't work if decisions on each and every issue is left up to the voters and if it doesn't have a ruling class that has the best for the country in their heart.

AGW is going to produce lots of losers, a few winners and many who will avoid difficulties by finding ever more poor to stand on and thus keep their heads above water. Look at Haiti. Absolute ecological disaster, utter, crushing poverty, and yet there are middle class suburbs that would fit right in here in the U.S.A. quite well. Haiti is a democracy.

My beef with Roger Pielke Jr. is that he is unreasonable. That is, if he is a humanist, then he doesn't have a logical argument. Following his recommendation will lead to mass misery, though for the larger part of the electorate (a minor part of the U.S. population, the poor don't vote) things will be honky dory.

I say this because solving AGW is so damn easy. The costs of implementing the technology is a tiny part of the world's GDP. Roger looks for excuses not to solve the problem.

First excuse: AGW isn't really happening.Second excuse: AGW is happening but only in a tiny way.Third excuse: AGW is happening but it's too costly to fix.Fourth excuse: AGW is happening and we can fix it, but we have to leave it up to the voters.

And people do take Roger Pielke seriously. Listen to this line of absolute BS he's shoveling out here.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=131104674

"SIEGEL: But why was it possible then to use market mechanisms - at least to help reduce levels of lead in gasoline, CFC emissions that were depleting the ozone layer, sulfur dioxide emissions that contributed to acid rain - but not carbon emissions?

Prof. PIELKE: Yeah, this is a really important point. For each of those cases, there were on-the-shelf technologies or other substitutes that could be switched out to meet the cap. The problem with trying to put a cap on carbon dioxide emissions is there is no readily available technological substitutes at the scale needed. What that means is that in cap and trade, we're trying to create a price signal that causes economic discomfort that motivates innovation.

And when you create economic discomfort, people do respond, but it's usually at the ballot box, not in the laboratory."

Vomit here.

No off the shelf technologies? WTF? Didn't the power companies pitch an almighty fit and claim there were no available technologies that could economically solve the sulfur dioxide problem?

So I suppose Roger will fully support EPA efforts to require power companies to reduce greenhouse gases? Right. I predict Roger will once again contradict himself in order to keep up with his denial that anything can be done about AGW.

Wow. It started with Tobis' perfectly adequate analogy that we're all in the same boat, then a misdirection on how dare he use the term "cabin" on a ship, and now we're arguing about Navy service during Vietnam and Richard Nixon's resignation. I guess the misdirection worked.

I'm sure that you agree (correct me if you don't) that the science behind the theory of anthropogenic induced climate change is a long one, and very well established (I can hear the cries of indignance from those in denial about AGW/ACC already), and borne out by multiple, independent data sets and consilience. Now, that integrated knowledge does not constitute a dogma, nor does defending the science against an onslaught of distortion , misinformation and personal attacks. At least it is not a "dogma" to reasonable, rational and informed (on the actual climate science) people.

Why have you elected to frame (and fabricate) the "debate" in such a (ludicrous) way so as to make it impossible for someone to defend any aspect of the theory of AGW/ACC or climate science in general without being accused of defending an alleged "dogma"? You need to choose your words and narrative much, much more carefully if you expect people to believe that you are being sincere.

Now your incoherence and ambiguity places you in an interesting/awkward position, because now you can never defend the climate science or your peers in the climate field who (like you) know AGW/ACC is a concern without being accused of defending the alleged "dogma"-- at least by many readers here. I will be watching for interest to see whether anyone accuses you of that should you decide to defend the climate science or IPCC at some point.

Moreover, it seems that in your model, Singer, Michaels et al. can distort and misrepresent the data and science at will and also malign scientists, and do whatever it takes to defend their very real "dogma"/ideology without so much as a word of critique from you or your fan base?

And when the science is repeatedly attacked by some of your friends (e.g., Michaels), and even people on your own blog, you are deathly silent-- heck, you even give them a pat on the back. Worse yet, when the scientists have the audacity (sarc) to stand up to the repeated attacks and to defend the integrity of the science, they are accused by you (a scientist) of defending the alleged IPCC "dogma".

This startling asymmetry (and hypocrisy on your part) flies in the face of your claims of honest intentions and sincerity.

Sure critique the IPCC and let us improve and advance the science, your peers are all for that (really), but you are not going to achieve anything this way. While we are counting how many angels can dance on a pinhead, nit pick, bicker, muse about hypotheticals and indulge your and your cohorts' sophistry-- GHG emissions continue to escalate. Or is that exactly what you want?

It is lost on you that your efforts are largely redundant, especially after the recommendations put forth by the AIC review and others. You know that, so why keep fabricating debate, fabricating controversy and sicking misguided and misinformed people on your peers?

Now this would all be bad enough, but then you have the gall to claim to be a mediator and to have the betterment of science at heart. How are these inane and clearly mendacious tactics meant to facilitate "building bridges" or constructive dialogue?

These are anything but felicitous actions on your part.

PS: There are some questions above, I would appreciate some direct and unambiguous answers not from your fan base, not Mosher-- you please. You framed the argument. You have made the assertions. You engaged in innuendo, insinuations and dog-whistling...now you need to answer to it."

"Moreover, it seems that in your model, Singer, Michaels et al. can distort and misrepresent the data and science at will and also malign scientists, and do whatever it takes to defend their very real "dogma"/ideology without so much as a word of critique from you or your fan base?

And when the science is repeatedly attacked by some of your friends (e.g., Michaels), and even people on your own blog, you are deathly silent-- heck, you even give them a pat on the back. Worse yet, when the scientists have the audacity (sarc) to stand up to the repeated attacks and to defend the integrity of the science, they are accused by you (a scientist) of defending the alleged IPCC "dogma".

This startling asymmetry (and hypocrisy on your part) flies in the face of your claims of honest intentions and sincerity.

Sure critique the IPCC and let us improve and advance the science, your peers are all for that (really), but you are not going to achieve anything this way. While we are counting how many angels can dance on a pinhead, nit pick, bicker, muse about hypotheticals and indulge your and your cohorts' sophistry-- GHG emissions continue to escalate. Or is that exactly what you want?

It is lost on you that your efforts are largely redundant, especially after the recommendations put forth by the AIC review and others. You know that, so why keep fabricating debate, fabricating controversy and sicking misguided and misinformed people on your peers?

Now this would all be bad enough, but then you have the gall to claim to be a mediator and to have the betterment of science at heart. How are these inane and clearly mendacious tactics meant to facilitate "building bridges" or constructive dialogue?

These are anything but felicitous actions on your part.

PS: There are some questions above, I would appreciate some direct and unambiguous answers not from your fan base, not Mosher-- you please. You framed the argument. You have made the assertions. You engaged in innuendo, insinuations and dog-whistling...now you need to answer to it."

Perhaps a more appropriate title might have been "Ending the assault on science and scientists by "skeptics"".

Anyhow, that brings me to the point of this post. As you know there are already musing about holding McCarthy-like interrogations of climate scientists by Republicans and Tea Party ideologues. These are indeed scary times, although your actions of late may have saved you experiencing the wrath of Barton and Inhofe. Time will tell.

You volunteered recently that you have been contacted by a politician/s. You allowed Mosher to post an (illegally obtained) email. So now I am going to ask you, very nicely, in the spirit of transparency and openness, to post a legally obtained email (or emails) that you received from the politician/s. Feel free to obfuscate their details, and name their name/s.

Many of your readers here have been demanding investigations against climate scientists, so your position on such is pertinent. So your role in these developments is relevant and should be a matter for the public record given what is at stake and given that tax payers money will be used to fund any such interrogations.

Additionally, please answer these questions, again as unambiguously and clearly as possible:

1) Do you condone plans by Republicans and Tea Party representatives to launch investigations against climate scientists?2) If yes, do you plan to do to prominently condemn such actions and what do you intend to do prevent them from happening?3) If no. Why so?4) If no. Do you plan to assist in any way the people launching and executing the investigations against your peers?5) If such interrogations go ahead, do you agree that they should include interrogations/cross examination of climate scientists from both the “skeptical” (e.g., Christy, Spencer, Lindzen) and the “warmist” sides?

If such a horrid inquisition does go ahead, it will not herald the end of the war, if anything it will just make matters much, much worse. I fear the likes of Inhofe will only be content when a "warmist" climate scientist is physically hurt or worse.

@FlaviusThank you for the clarification. I would think that the probability of delusional rule gets smaller as more people have a say in policy making.

@HankThe appropriate rate of inflation is a political decision. You'd find that the academic literature is divided on this matter and on related matters, such as on how best of achieve price stability and on how to define inflation. You'd also find that politicians disagree with one another.

Dr. Tol--did you watch the electrical distribution transformer efficiency rules? States and industry had to sue the federal government to get the rules issued

Industry, states and conservation groups asked for a high efficiency rule for replacing transformers, to build in the longterm savings installing the most efficient equipment available off the shelf (without shareholders complaining choosing longer versus shorter term profits). Bush's DOE refused to consider CO2 or climate as factors so opted for lesser "improvement" much less than the utilities wanted.http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/us/politics/06energy.html

Huge savings are available with regulations like that for hardware that's in service for decades. Industry analyzes this stuff. You should know about it, and many similar opportunities.http://tdworld.com/overhead_distribution/transformer-efficiency-moves-to-forefront-20090701/

@FlaviusThere is no doubt that democracies make mistakes. A quick glance at history suggests that disastrous mistakes are more likely in autocracies -- even if many autocrats started with the best of intentions.

If democracy somehow should decide what should be done about AGW (or should it decide whether AGW is true first ?), should democracy also decide whether evolution is true and, therefore, whether branches of science like Genetic Engineering should be allowed ? How would America vote ?

Richard, not to end this thread, but there are any number of examples where widespread popular support has produced genocide against minorities. The entire point of a constitutional system is to both empower majorities and set limits on them. In short, you need to think this through before getting cornered

If you're referring to Fuller I seem to be missing the point. I couldn't find any indication of the ol' boy's presence on that DD thread - dodgy link, or has all trace of the fellow disappeared after his soliloquy? If so, he must have been wrapped in heavy chains indeed...

I for one would actually like to see Fuller return, even if momentarily, just for the confirmation of his claim that he was responsible for any incompetence that might be present in the measurement of sea water temperature.

Rabett Run

Subscribe Rabett Run

The Bunny Trail By Email

Contributors

Eli Rabett

Eli Rabett is a not quite failed professorial techno-bunny, a chair election from retirement, at a wanna be research university that has a lot to be proud of but has swallowed the Kool-Aid. The students are naive but great and the administrators vary day-to-day between homicidal and delusional. His colleagues are smart, but they have a curious inability to see the holes that they dig for themselves. Prof. Rabett is thankful that they occasionally heed his pointing out the implications of the various enthusiasms that rattle around the department and school. Ms. Rabett is thankful that Prof. Rabett occasionally heeds her pointing out that he is nuts.